GODZILLA II

Because this is a subject I consider of critical importance, I wanted to have my ducks in a row before I answered. I consulted several authors at the suggestion of Harvey Wasserman, long-time anti-nuke worker, and they include: Dr. John William Gofman, nuclear specialist and heart surgeon who used to be the chief researcher for the Atomic Energy COmmission; Joe Mangano, Dr. Jay Gould, founder of The Radiation and Pulic health project; Dr. Ernest Sternglass author of a book on the effects of “low-level radiation” entitled: “Secret Fallout: Low Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island, and Dr. Helen Caldicott, the Austrailian physician who has dedicated her life to waking the public to the dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle. So, whether or not you like duck, mine are at least in a row, and these are my responses with gratitude to those that took the time to write,even double-digit IQ flamers.

Dwalters, seemed to miss my point that it is not the production of electricity from nuclear plants which is so carbon intensive, but the building of them. The concrete alone, one of the most carbon-producing products on earth, the heating of water, the heavy equiptment, etc. are not factored into the production figures of the nuclear power plants by the industry, and consequently I don’t buy his “major research” and “other institute reports.” The problem with the internet is you can say anything, and quote nearly any source. We can argue about whose sources are better, but first, I named mine, and second none of them have any ties to the nuclear power industry. Why do my critics propose that they might be raising the alarms they do? Most of them are doctors who have dedicated their lives to helping people, why should they suddenly turn into foolish alarmists?

GrlCowan seems to have missed the fact that the coal and oil industries are buying into power companies. They want to own it all. They know that regulatory difficulties and expense and public fears will do plenty to slow down the nuclear build-up, leaving them plenty of time to sell their product.

While I appreciate BlueMarble’s correction about my use of the apostrophe—typing faster than thinking sometime- his erudite-sounding screed is actually quite irrelevant to the debate over nuclear power. Atomic reactors are horrendously expensive. On a level playing field they, cannot possibly compete with even renewables. If they were so safe, why can they not get private liability insurance? The Price-Anderson Act turned their insurance over to the Federal Government (the tax-payer) and limits the sizes of claims that homeowners and citizens can receive. They cannot raise, private funding for new construction or, after a half-century, have they come one iota closer to a solution for their high-level waste problems. No one has figured out how to protect them from terrorist attacks, and in every staged mock raid, the “terrorists” have overwhelmed the nuclear power plant security. This is like planting atomic bombs on American soil and waiting for them to be discovered and attacked by the people we fear most. Aside from direct terror attacks, dwalters, did not in any way account for their huge direct heat emissions into the lakes, rivers, oceans and atmosphere. Nor did he mention the danger of them not withstanding the impacts of earthquakes considered increasingly likely to hit the sites of Diablo Canyon, San Onofre et. al.

As my pal, Harvey Wasserman says, “Aside from all that,[his] theoretical discussion about background levels of radiation has only marginal meaning to evaluating the health impacts of atomic reactors. They emit not only x-rays and gamma rays, but also particulate emissions involving alpha and beta particles. Why is it that after 50 years there is still no systematic monitoring regimen for actually tracking the human beings that live in areas downwind from atomic reactors. San Francisco’s own Dr. John Gofman, the first chief health researcher for the Atomic Energy Commission, concluded in the late 1960s that “normal” emissions from nuclear plants would kill thousands of Americans yearly, with no catastrophe required. ”

For decades, the old (hardly left-wing) Encylopedia Britannica and all other core publications that deal with the health impacts of radiation,state clearly that there is “no safe dose,” ie no dose of radiation that can be guaranteed to have zero health impacts. This tale of the building in Taiwan belongs in the halls of urban legend and makes no sense except in a world where the powers that be have refused for a half-century to directly monitor the health of those living near atomic reactors. I would hope that anyone might take a look at the work of the authors cited above, or a web-site like: http://www.radiation.org/ before taking up residence near a nuclear plant.

I greatly appreciate David Walters writing under his own name, but I wonder exactly what Progressive movement he is representing? Simply publishing on Daily Kos does not guarantee immunity from facts. Nuclear power is increasingly being left behind by the revolution in reneweable technologies for all the reasons cited above. It cannot compete with either increased efficiency of conventional plants, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and the new possibilities like algae to bio-diesel programs beginning to roll online. All the quotations about background radiation, are to my mind urban legends. They are less than useful given the total absence of an on-going epidemiological data base which tracks those living near nuclear plants. The industry has fought such studies tooth and nail and one wonders why? When I made this argument to Harvey Wasserman he asked ironically, “Is there a progressive Left reason why the nuclear industry has refused to do this over the last fifty years?”

All the major environmental organizations in the country have maintained a firm opposition to nuclear technology for sound reasons over and above the danger. The ‘progressive’ consensus seems to be directing its energy and attention towards community-based, renewable, more-efficient forms of generation that are safer, cleaner, cheaper and more reliable than anything nuclear power has demonstrated in its fifty year trial run. Wouldn’t a truly progressive position mean calling for “green” power—non-toxic, renewable, decentralized, and safe? I appreciate your point of view, but I’m not convinced.